Republic Act No.

8749

June 23, 1999

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL POLICY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Chapter 1 General Provisions Article One Basic Air Quality Policies Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999." Section 4. Recognition of Rights. - Pursuant to the above-declared principles, the following rights of citizens are hereby sought to be recognized and the State shall seek to guarantee their enjoyment: (a) The right to breathe clean air; (b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according to the principles of sustainable development; (c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning, implementation and monitoring of environmental policies and programs and in the decision-making process; (d) The right to participate in the decision-making process concerning development policies, plans and programs projects or activities that may have adverse impact on the environment and public health; (e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the potential hazard of any activity, undertaking or project and to be served timely notice of any significant rise in the level of pollution and the accidental or deliberate release into the atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances; (f) The right of access to public records which a citizen may need to exercise his or her rights effectively under this Act; (g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to enjoin all activities in violation of environmental laws and regulations, to compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area, and to seek the imposition of penal sanctions against violators of environmental laws; and (h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of personal damages resulting from the adverse environmental and public health impact of a project or activity. Article Two Definition of Terms Section 5. Definitions. - As used in this Act: a) "Air pollutant" means any matter found in the atmosphere other than oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and the inert gases in their natural or normal concentrations, that is detrimental to health or the environment, which includes but not limited to smoke, dust, soot, cinders, fly ash, solid particles of any kind, gases, fumes, chemical mists, steam and radio-active substances; b) "Air pollution" means any alteration of the physical, chemical and biological properties of the atmospheric air, or any discharge thereto of any liquid, gaseous or solid substances that will or is likely to create or to render the air resources of the country harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health, safety or welfare or which will adversely affect their utilization for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate purposes; i) "Greenhouse gases" mean those gases that can potentially or can reasonably be expected to induce global warming, which include carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen, chlorofluorocarbons, and the like; j) "Hazardous substances" mean those substances which present either: (1) short-term acute hazards such as acute toxicity by ingestion, inhalation, or skin absorption, corrosivity or other skin or eye contact hazard or the risk of fire explosion; or (2) longterm toxicity upon repeated exposure, carcinogenicity (which in some cases result in acute exposure but with a long latent period), resistance to detoxification process such as biodegradation, the potential to pollute underground or surface waters;

r) "Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)" means those substances that significantly deplete or otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse effects of human health and the environment such as, but not limited to, chloroflourocarbons, halons and the like; s) "Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)" means the organic compounds that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate through the food web, and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment. These compounds resist photolytic, chemical and biological degradation, which shall include but not be limited to dioxin, furan, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, such as aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, toxaphere and chlordane; t) "Poisonous and toxic fumes" means any emissions and fumes which are beyond internationally accepted standards, including but not limited to the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline values; u) "Pollution control device" means any device or apparatus used to prevent, control or abate the pollution of air caused by emissions from identified pollution sources at levels within the air pollution control standards established by the Department; Section 13. Emission Charge System. - The Department, in case of industrial dischargers, and the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), in case of motor vehicle dischargers, shall, based on environmental techniques, design, impose on and collect regular emission fees from said dischargers as part of the emission permitting system or vehicle registration renewal system, as the case may be. The system shall encourage the industries and motor vehicles to abate, reduce, or prevent pollution. The basis of the fees include, but is not limited to, the volume and toxicity of any emitted pollutant. Industries, which shall install pollution control devices or retrofit their existing facilities with mechanisms that reduce pollution shall be entitled to tax incentives such as but not limited total credits and/or accelerated depreciation deductions. Section 14. Air Quality Management Fund. - An Air Quality Management Fund to be administered by the Department as a special account in the National Treasury is hereby established to finance containment, removal, and clean-up operations of the Government in air pollution cases, guarantee restoration of ecosystems and rehabilitate areas affected by the acts of violators of this Act, to support research, enforcement and monitoring activities and capabilities of the relevant agencies, as well as to provide technical assistance to the relevant agencies. Such fund may likewise be allocated per airshed for the undertakings herein stated. The Fund shall be sourced from the fines imposed and damages awarded to the Republic of the Philippines by the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), proceeds of licenses and permits issued by the Department under this Act, emission fees and from donations, endowments and grants in the forms of contributions. Contributions to the Fund shall be exempted from donor taxes and all other taxes, charges or fees imposed by the Government. Article Two Air Pollution Clearances and Permits for Stationary Sources Section 16. Permits. - Consistent with the provisions of this Act, the Department shall have the authority to issue permits as it may determine necessary for the prevention and abatement of air pollution. Said permits shall cover emission limitations for the regulated air pollutants to help attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards. These permits shall serve as management tools for the LGUs in the development of their action plan. Section 18. Financial Liability for Environmental Rehabilitation. - As part of the environmental management plan attached to the environmental compliance certificate pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and rules and regulations set therefor, the Department shall require program and project proponents to put up financial guarantee mechanisms to finance the needs for emergency response, clean-up rehabilitation of areas that may be damaged during the program or projects actual implementation. Liability for damages shall continue even after the termination of a program or project, where such damages are clearly attributable to that program or project and for a definite period to be determined by the Department and incorporated into the environmental compliance certificate. Financial liability instruments may be in the form a trust fund, environmental insurance, surety bonds, letters of credit, as well as self-insurance. The choice of the guarantee instruments shall furnish the Department with evidence of availment of such instruments. Article Three Pollution from Stationary Sources Section 20. Ban on Incineration. - Incineration, hereby defined as the burning of municipal, biomedical and hazardous waste, which process emits poisonous and toxic fumes is hereby prohibited; Provided, however, That the prohibition shall not apply to traditional small-scale method of community/neighborhood sanitation "siga", traditional, agricultural, cultural, health, and food preparation and crematoria; Provided, Further, That existing incinerators

dealing with a biomedical wastes shall be out within three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act;Provided, Finally, that in the interim, such units shall be limited to the burning of pathological and infectious wastes, and subject to close monitoring by the Department. Local government units are hereby mandated to promote, encourage and implement in their respective jurisdiction a comprehensive ecological waste management that includes waste segregation, recycling and composting. With due concern on the effects of climate change, the Department shall promote the use of state-of-the-art, environmentally-sound and safe non-burn technologies for the handling, treatment, thermal destruction, utilization, and disposal of sorted, unrecycled, uncomposted, biomedical and hazardous wastes. Article Four Pollution from Motor Vehicles Section 22. Regulation of All Motor Vehicles and Engines. - Any imported new or locally-assembled new motor vehicle shall not be registered unless it complies with the emission standards set pursuant to this Act, as evidenced by a Certificate of Conformity (COC) issued by the Department. Any imported new motor vehicle engine shall not be introduced into commerce, sold or used unless it complies with emission standards set pursuant to this Act. Any imported used motor vehicle or rebuilt motor vehicle using new or used engines, major parts or components shall not be registered unless it complies with the emission standards. In case of non-compliance, the importer or consignee may be allowed to modify or rebuild the vehicular engine so it will be in compliance with applicable emission standards. No motor vehicle registration (MVR) shall be issued unless such motor vehicle passes the emission testing requirement promulgated in accordance with this Act. Such testing shall be conducted by the DOTC or its authorized inspection centers within sixty (60) days prior to date of registration. The DTI shall promulgate the necessary regulations prescribing the useful life of vehicles and engines including devices in order to ensure that such vehicles will conform to the emissions which they were certified to meet. These regulations shall include provisions for ensuring the durability of emission devices. Section 23. Second-Hand Motor Vehicle Engines. - Any imported second-hand motor vehicle engine shall not be introduced into commerce, sold or used unless it complies with emission standards set pursuant to this Act. Article Five Pollution from Other Sources Section 24. Pollution from smoking. - Smoking inside a public building or an enclosed public place including public vehicles and other means of transport or in any enclosed area outside of one's private residence, private place of work or any duly designated smoking area is hereby prohibited under this Act. This provision shall be implemented by the LGUs. Section 28. Misfueling. - In order to prevent the disabling of any emission control device by lead contamination, no person shall introduce or cause or allow the introduction of leaded gasoline into any motor vehicle equipped with a gasoline tank filler inlet and labeled "unleaded gasoline only". This prohibition shall also apply to any person who knows or should know that such vehicle is designed solely for the use of unleaded gasoline. Article Two Other Pollutants Section 30. Ozone-Depleting Substances. - Consistent with the terms and conditions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and other international agreements and protocols to which the Philippines is a signatory, the Department shall phase out ozone-depleting substances. Within sixty (60) days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall publish a list of substances which are known to cause harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer. Section 31. Greenhouse Gases. - The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration (PAGASA) shall regularly monitor meteorological factors affecting environmental conditions including ozone depletion and greenhouse gases and coordinate with the Department in order to effectively guide air pollution monitoring and standard-setting activities.

The Department, together with concerned agencies and local government units, shall prepare and fully implement a national plan consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other international agreements, conventions and protocols on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. Section 32. Persistent Organic Pollutants. - The Department shall, within a period of two (2) years after the enactment of this Act, establish an inventory list of all sources of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the country. The Department shall develop short-term and long-term national government programs on the reduction and elimination of POPs such as dioxins and furans. Such programs shall be formulated within a year after the establishment of the inventory list. Section 33. Radioactive Emissions. - All projects which will involve the use of atomic and/or nuclear energy, and will entail release and emission of radioactive substances into the environment, incident to the establishment or possession of nuclear energy facilities and radioactive materials, handling, transport, production, storage, and use of radioactive materials, shall be regulated in the interest of public health and welfare by the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI), in coordination with Department and other appropriate government agencies. Chapter 4 Institutional Mechanism Section 34. Lead Agency. - The Department, unless otherwise provided herein, shall be the primary government agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Act. To be more effective in this regard, The Department's Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) shall be converted from a staff bureau to a line bureau for a period of no more than two (2) years, unless a separate, comprehensive environmental management agency is created. Section 36. Role of Local Government Units. - Local Government Units (LGUs) shall share the responsibility in the management and maintenance of air quality within their territorial jurisdiction. Consistent with Sections 7, 8 and 9 of this Act, LGUs shall implement air quality standards set by the Board in areas within their jurisdiction; Provided, however, That in case where the board has not been duly constituted and has not promulgated its standards, the standards set forth in this Act shall apply. The Department shall provide the LGUs with technical assistance, trainings and a continuing capability-building program to prepare them to undertake full administration of the air quality management and regulation within their territorial jurisdiction. Section 37. Environmental and Natural Resources Office. - There may be established an Environment and Natural Resources Office in every province, city, or municipality which shall be headed by the environment and natural resources officer and shall be appointed by the Chief Executive of every province, city or municipality in accordance with the provisions of Section 484 of Republic Act No. 7160. Its powers and duties, among others, are: a) To prepare comprehensive air quality management programs, plans and strategies within the limits set forth in Republic act. No. 7160 and this Act which shall be implemented within its territorial jurisdiction upon the approval of the sanggunian; b) To provide technical assistance and support to the governor or mayor, as the case may be, in carrying out measures to ensure the delivery of basic services and the provision of adequate facilities relative to air quality; c) To take the lead in all efforts concerning air quality protection and rehabilitation; d) To recommend to the Board air quality standards which shall not exceed the maximum permissible standards set by rational laws; e) To coordinate with other government agencies and non-governmental organizations in the implementation of measures to prevent and control air pollution; and f) Exercise such other powers and perform such duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance: Provided, however, That in provinces/cities/municipalities where there are no environment and natural resources officers, the local executive concerned may designate any of his official and/or chief of office preferably the provincial, city or municipal agriculturist, or any of his employee: Provided, Finally, That in case an employee is designated as such, he must have sufficient experience in environmental and natural resources management, conservation and utilization. Chapter 5 Actions

Section 40. Administrative Action. - Without prejudice to the right of any affected person to file an administrative action, the Department shall, on its own instance or upon verified complaint by any person, institute administrative proceedings against any person who violates: (a) Standards or limitation provided under this Act; or (b) Any order, rule or regulation issued by the Department with respect to such standard or limitation. Section 41. Citizen Suits. - For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act or its implementing rules and regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper courts against: (a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; or (b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules and regulations issued inconsistent with this Act; and/or (c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined as a duty by this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; or abuses his authority in the performance of his duty; or, in any manner, improperly performs his duties under this Act or its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until thirty-day (30) notice has been taken thereon. The court shall exempt such action from the payment of filing fees, except fees for actions not capable of pecuniary estimations, and shall likewise, upon prima facie showing of the non-enforcement or violation complained of, exempt the plaintiff from the filing of an injunction bond for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Within thirty (30) days, the court shall make a determination if the compliant herein is malicious and/or baseless and shall accordingly dismiss the action and award attorney's fees and damages. Section 42. Independence of Action. - The filing of an administrative suit against such person/entity does not preclude the right of any other person to file any criminal or civil action. Such civil action shall proceed independently. Section 43. Suits and Strategic Legal Actions Against Public Participation and the Enforcement of This Act. - Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec. 41 of this Act, or against any person, institution or government agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigating prosecutor or the court, as the case may be, to immediately make a determination not exceeding thirty (30) days whether said legal action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle such legal recourses of the person complaining of or enforcing the provisions of this Act. Upon determination thereof, evidence warranting the same, the court shall dismiss the case and award attorney's fees and double damages. This provision shall also apply and benefit public officers who are sued for acts committed in their official capacity, their being no grave abuse of authority, and done in the course of enforcing this Act. Section 44. Lien Upon Personal and Immovable Properties of Violators. - Fines and penalties imposed pursuant to this Act shall be liens upon personal or immovable properties of the violator. Such lien shall, in case of insolvency of the respondent violator, enjoy preference to laborer's wages under Articles 2241 and 2242 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the New Civil Code of the Philippines. Chapter 6 Fines and Penalties Section 45. Violation of Standards for Stationary Sources. - For actual exceedance of any pollution or air quality standards under this Act or its rules and regulations, the Department, through the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), shall impose a fine of not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) for every day of violation against the owner or operator of a stationary source until such time that the standards have been complied with. For purposes of the application of the fines, the PAB shall prepare a fine rating system to adjust the maximum fine based on the violator's ability to pay, degree of willfulness, degree of negligence, history of non-compliance and degree of recalcitrance: Provided, That in case of negligence, the first time offender's ability to pay may likewise be considered by the Pollution Adjudication Board: Provided, Further, That in the absence of any extenuating or aggravating circumstances, the amount of fine for negligence shall be equivalent to one-half of the fine for willful violation. The fines herein prescribed shall be increased by at least ten percent (10%), every three (3) years to compensate for inflation and to maintain the deterrent function of such fines.

In addition to the fines, the PAB shall order closure, suspension of development, construction, or operations of the stationary sources until such time that proper environmental safeguards are put in place: Provided, That an establishment liable for a third offense shall suffer permanent closure immediately. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the immediate issuance of an ex parte order for such closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations during the pendency of the case upon prima facie evidence that their is imminent threat to life, public health, safety or general welfare, or to plant or animal life, or whenever there is an exceedance of the emission standards set by the Department and/or the Board and/or the appropriate LGU. Section 46. Violation of Standards for Motor Vehicles. - No motor vehicle shall be registered with the DOTC unless it meets the emission standards set by the Department as provided in Sec. 21 hereof. Any vehicle suspected of violation of emission standards through visual signs, such as, but not limited to smokebelching, shall be subjected to an emission test by a duly authorized emission testing center. For this purpose, the DOTC or its authorized testing center shall establish a roadside inspection system. Should it be shown that there was no violation of emission standards, the vehicle shall be immediately released. Otherwise, a testing result indicating an exceedance of the emission standards would warrant the continuing custody of the impounded vehicle unless the appropriate penalties are fully paid, and the license plate is surrendered to the DOTC pending the fulfillment of the undertaking by the owner/operator of the motor vehicle to make the necessary repairs so as to comply with the standards. A pass shall herein be issued by the DOTC to authorize the use of the motor vehicle within a specified period that shall not exceed seven (7) days for the sole purpose of making the necessary repairs on the said vehicle. The owner/operator of the vehicle shall be required to correct its defects and show proof of compliance to the appropriate pollution control office before the vehicle can be allowed to be driven on any public or subdivision roads. In addition, the driver and operator of the apprehended vehicle shall undergo a seminar on pollution control management conducted by the DOTC and shall also suffer the following penalties: a) First Offense - a fine not to exceed Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00); b) Second Offense - a fine not less than Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and not to exceed Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00); and c) Third offense - one (1) year suspension of the Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) and a fine of not less than Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) and not more than Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00). Any violation of the provisions of Sec. 21 paragraph (d) with regard to national inspection and maintenance program, including technicians and facility compliance shall penalized with a fine of not less than Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) or cancellation of license of both the technician and the center, or both, as determined by the DTI. All law enforcement officials and deputized agents accredited to conduct vehicle emissions testing and apprehensions shall undergo a mandatory training on emission standards and regulations. For this purpose, the Department, together with the DOTC, DTI, DOST, Philippine National Police (PNP) and other concerned agencies and private entities shall design a training program. Section 47. Fines and Penalties for Violations of Other Provisions in the Act. - For violations of all other provisions provided in this Act and of the rules and regulations thereof, a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) but not more than One Hundred thousand Pesos (P100,000) or six (6) months to six (6) years imprisonment or both shall be imposed. If the offender is a juridical person, the president, manager, directors, trustees, the pollution control officer or the officials directly in charge of the operations shall suffer the penalty herein provided. Section 48. Gross Violations. - In case of gross violation of this Act or its implementing rules and regulations, the PAB shall recommend to the proper government agencies to file the appropriate criminal charges against the violators. The PAB shall assist the public prosecutor in the litigation of the case. Gross violation shall mean: (a) three (3) or more specific offenses within a period of one (1) year; (b) three (3) or more specific offenses with three (3) consecutive years; (c) blatant disregard of the orders of the PAB, such s but not limited to the breaking of seal, padlocks and other similar devices, or operation despite the existence of an order for closure, discontinuance or cessation of operation; and (d) irreparable or grave damage to the environment as a consequence of any violation of the provisions of this Act.

Offenders shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than six (6) years but not more than ten (10) years at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the president, manager, directors, trustees, the pollution control officer or the officials directly in charge of the operations shall suffer the penalty herein provided.

REPUBLIC ACT 9003 January 26, 2001 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, CREATING THE NECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS AND INCENTIVES, DECLARING CERTAIN ACTS PROHIBITED AND PROVIDING PENALTIES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in Congress assembled: CHAPTER I BASIC POLICIES Article 1 General Provisions Section 1. Short Title - This Act shall be known as the "Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000." Article 2 Definition of Terms Section 3. Definition of Terms - For the purposes of this Act: (h) Controlled dump shall refer to a disposal site at which solid waste is deposited in accordance with the minimum prescribed standards of site operation; (j) Disposal shall refer to the discharge, deposit, dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any solid waste into or in an land; (k) Disposal site shall refer to a site where solid waste is finally discharged and deposited; (l) Ecological solid waste management shall refer to the systematic administration of activities which provide for segregation at source, segregated transportation, storage, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste and all other waste management activities which do not harm the environment; (m) Environmentally acceptable shall refer to the quality of being re-usable, biodegradable or compostable, recyclable and not toxic or hazardous to the environment; (p) Hazardous waste shall refer to solid waste management or combination of solid waste which because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed; (q) Leachate shall refer to the liquid produced when waste undergo decomposition, and when water percolate through solid waste undergoing decomposition. It is contaminated liquid that contains dissolved and suspended materials; (r) Materials recovery facility - includes a solid waste transfer station or sorting station, drop-off center, a composting facility, and a recycling facility; (t) Open dump shall refer to a disposal area wherein the solid wastes are indiscriminately thrown or disposed of without due planning and consideration for environmental and Health standards; (z) Recyclable material shall refer to any waste material retrieved from the waste stream and free from contamination that can still be converted into suitable beneficial use or for other purposes, including, but not limited to, newspaper, ferrous scrap metal, non-ferrous scrap metal, used oil, corrugated cardboard, aluminum, glass, office paper, tin cans and other materials as may be determined by the Commission; (bb) Recycling shall refer to the treating of used or waste materials through a process of making them suitable for beneficial use and for other purposes, and includes any process by which solid waste materials

are transformed into new products in such a manner that the original product may lose their identity, and which maybe used as raw materials for the production of other goods or services: Provided, That the collection, segregation and re-use of previously used packaging material shall be deemed recycling under this Act; (ff) Sanitary landfill shall refer to a waste disposal site designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that exerts engineering control over significant potential environment impacts arising from the development and operation of the facility; (kk) Solid waste shall refer to all discarded household, commercial waste, non-hazardous institutional and industrial waste, street sweepings, construction debris, agricultural waste, and other non-hazardous/nontoxic solid waste. Unless specifically noted otherwise, the term "solid waste" as used in this Act shall not include: (1) Waste identified or listed as hazardous waste of a solid, liquid, contained gaseous or semisolid form which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious or incapacitating reversible illness, or acute/chronic effect on the health of persons and other organisms; (2) Infectious waste from hospitals such as equipment, instruments, utensils, and fomites of a disposable nature from patients who are suspected to have or have been diagnosed as having communicable diseases and must therefore be isolated as required by public health agencies, laboratory wastes such as pathological specimens (i.e. all tissues, specimens of blood elements, excreta, and secretions obtained from patients or laboratory animals) and disposable fomites that may harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms, and surgical operating room pathologic materials from outpatient areas and emergency rooms; and (3) Waste resulting from mining activities, including contaminated soil and debris. CHAPTER II INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM Section 4. National Solid Waste Management Commission - There is hereby established a National Solid Waste Management Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, under the Office of the President. The Commissioner shall be composed of fourteen (14) members from the government sector and three members from the private sector. The government sector shall be represented by the heads of the following agencies in their ex officio capacity: (1) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); (2) Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG); (3) Department of Science and Technology (DOST); (4) Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); (5) Department of Health (DOH); (6) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI); (7) Department of Agriculture (DA); (8) Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA); (9) League of provincial governors; (10) League of city mayors; (11) League of municipal mayors; (12) Association of barangay councils; (13) Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA); and (14) Philippine Information Agency. The private sector shall be represented by the following:

(a) A representative from nongovernment organizations (NGOs) whose principal purpose is to promote recycling and the protection of air and water quality; (b) A representative from the recycling industry; and (c) A representative from the manufacturing or packaging industry; The Commission may, from time to time, call on any other concerned agencies or sectors as it may deem necessary. Provided, That representatives from the NGOs, recycling and manufacturing or packaging industries shall be nominated through a process designed by themselves and shall be appointed by the President for a term of three (3) years. Provided, further, That the Secretaries of the member agencies of the Commission shall formulate action plans for their respective agencies to complement the National Solid Waste Management Framework. The Department Secretary and a private sector representative of the Commission shall serve as chairman and vice chairman, respectively. The private sector representatives of the Commission shall be appointed on the basis of their integrity, high decree of professionalism and having distinguished themselves in environmental and resource management. The members of the Commission shall serve and continue to hold office until their successors shall have been appointed and qualified. Should a member of the Commission fail to complete his/her term, the unexpired portion of the term. Finally, the members shall be entitled to reasonable traveling expenses and honoraria. The Department, through the Environmental Management Bureau, shall provide secretariat support to the Commission. The Secretariat shall be headed by an executive director who shall be nominated by the members of the Commission and appointed by the chairman. Section 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission - The Commission shall oversee the implementation of solid waste management plans and prescribe policies to achieve the objectives of this Act. The Commission shall undertake the following activities. (a) Prepare the national solid waste management framework; (b) Approve local solid waste management plans in accordance with its rules and regulations; (c) Review and monitor the implementation of local solid waste management plans; (d) Coordinate the operation of local solid waste management boards in the provincial and city/municipal levels; (e) To the maximum extent feasible, utilizing existing resources, assist provincial, city and municipal solid waste management plans; (f) Develop a model provincial, city and municipal solid waste management plan that will establish prototypes of the content and format which provinces, cities and municipalities may use in meeting the requirements of the National Solid Waste Management Framework; (g) Adopt a program to provide technical and other capability building assistance and support to local government units in the development and implementation of source reduction programs; (h) Develop and implement a program to assist local government units in the identification of markets for materials that are diverted from disposal facilities through re-use, recycling, and composting, and other environment-friendly methods; (i) Develop a mechanism for the imposition of sanctions for the violations environmental rules and regulations; (j) Manage the Solid Waste Management Fund; (k) Develop and prescribe procedures for the issuance of appropriate permits and clearances. (l) Review the incentives scheme for effective solid waste management, for purpose of ensuring relevance and efficiency in achieving the objectives of this Act; (m) Formulate the necessary education promotion and information campaign strategies;

(n) Establish, after notice and hearing of the parties concerned, standards, criteria, guidelines, and formula that are fair, equitable and reasonable, in establishing tipping charges and rates that the proponent will charge in the operation and management of solid waste management facilities and technologies. (o) Develop safety nets and alternative livelihood programs for small recyclers and other sectors that will be affected as a result of the construction and/or operation of solid waste management recycling plant or facility. (p) Formulate and update a list of non-environmentally acceptable materials in accordance with the provisions of this Act. For this purpose, it shall be necessary that proper consultation be conducted by the Commission with all concerned industries to ensure a list that is based on technological and economic viability. (q) Encourage private sector initiatives, community participation and investments resource recovery-based livelihood programs for local communities. (r) Encourage all local government agencies and all local government units to patronize products manufactured using recycled and recyclable materials; (s) Propose and adopt regulations requiring the source separation and post separation collection, segregated collection, processing, marketing and sale of organic and designated recyclable material generated in each local government unit; and (t) Study and review of the following: (i) Standards, criteria and guidelines for promulgation and implementation of an integrated national solid waste management framework; and (ii) Criteria and guidelines for siting, design, operation and maintenance of solid waste management facilities. Section 8. Role of the Department. - For the furtherance of the objectives of this Act, the Department shall have the following functions: (a) Chair the Commission created pursuant to this Act; (b) Prepare an annual National Solid Waste Management Status Report; (c) Prepare and distribute information, education and communication materials on solid waste management; (d) Establish methods and other parameters for the measurement of waste reduction, collection and disposal; (e) Provide technical and other capability building assistance and support to the LGUs in the development and implementation of local solid waste management plans and programs; (f) Recommend policies to eliminate barriers to waste reduction programs; (g) Exercise visitorial and enforcement powers to ensure strict compliance with this Act; (h) Perform such other powers and functions necessary to achieve the objectives of this Act; and (i) Issue rules and regulations to effectively implement the provisions of this Act. Section 9. Visitorial Powers of the Department. - The Department or its duly authorized representative shall have access to, and the right to copy therefrom, the records required to be maintained pursuant to the provisions of this Act. The Secretary or the duly authorized representative shall likewise have the right to enter the premises of any generator, recycler or manufacturer, or other facilities any time to question any employee or investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine any violation, or which may aid in the effective enforcement of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. This Section shall not apply to private dwelling places unless the visitorial power is otherwise judicially authorized. Section 10. Role of LGUs in Solid Waste Management - Pursuant to the relevant provisions of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local government code, the LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Act within their respective jurisdictions.

Segregation and collection of solid waste shall be conducted at the barangay level specifically for biodegradable, compostable and reusable wastes: Provided, That the collection of non-recyclable materials and special wastes shall be the responsibility of the municipality or city. Section 20. Establishing Mandatory Solid Waste Diversion - Each LGU plan shall include an implementation schedule which shows that within five (5) years after the effectivity of this Act, the LGU shall divert at least 25% of all solid waste from waste disposal facilities through re-use, recycling and composting activities and other resource recovery activities; Provided, That the waste diversion goals shall be increased every three (3) years thereafter;Provided, further, That nothing in this Section prohibits a local government unit from implementing re-use, recycling, and composting activities designed to exceed the goal. Article 2 Segregation of Wastes Section 21. Mandatory Segregation of Solid Wastes - The LGUs shall evaluate alternative roles for the public and private sectors in providing collection services, type of collection system, or combination of systems, that best meet their needs: Provided, That segregation of wastes shall primarily be conducted at the source, to include household, institutional, industrial, commercial and agricultural sources: Provided, further; That wastes shall be segregated into the categories provided in Sec. 22 of this Act. For premises containing six (6) or more residential units, the local government unit shall promulgate regulations requiring the owner or person in charge of such premises to: (a) provide for the residents a designated area and containers in which to accumulate source separated recyclable materials to be collected by the municipality or private center; and (b) notify the occupants of each buildings of the requirements of this Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Section 22. Requirements for the Segregation and Storage of Solid Waste - The following shall be the minimum standards and requirements for segregation and storage of solid waste pending collection: (a) There shall be a separate container for each type of waste from all sources: Provided, That in the case of bulky waste, it will suffice that the same be collected and placed in a separate designated area; and (b) The solid waste container depending on its use shall be properly marked or identified for on-site collection as "compostable", "non-recyclable", "recyclable" or "special waste", or any other classification as may be determined by the Commission. Article 4 Recycling Program Section 27. Requirement for Eco-Labeling - The DTI shall formulate and implement a coding system for packaging materials and products to facilitate waste and recycling and re-use. Section 29. Non-Environmentally Acceptable Products - Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, the Commission shall, after public notice and hearing, prepare a list of nonenvironmentally acceptable products as defined in this Act that shall be prohibited according to a schedule that shall be prepared by the Commission:Provided, however, That non-environmentally acceptable products shall not be prohibited unless the Commission first finds that there are alternatives available which are available to consumers at no more than ten percent (10%) greater cost than the disposable product. Notwithstanding any other provisions to the contrary, this section shall not apply to: (a) Packaging used at hospitals, nursing homes or other medical facilities; and (b) Any packaging which is not environmentally acceptable, but for which there is no commercially available alternatives as determined by the Commission. The Commission shall annually review and update the list of prohibited non-environmentally acceptable products. Section 30. Prohibition on the Use of Non-Environmentally Acceptable Packaging - No person owning, operating or conducting a commercial establishment in the country shall sell or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any products that are placed, wrapped or packaged in or on packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging: Provided, That the Commission shall determine a phaseout period after proper consultation and hearing with the stakeholders or with the sectors concerned. The presence in the commercial establishment of non-environmentally acceptable packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey the same at retail to customers.

Any person who is a manufacturer, broker or warehouse operator engaging in the distribution or transportation of commercial products within the country shall file a report with the concerned local government within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, and annually thereafter, a listing of any products in packaging which is not environmentally acceptable. The Commission shall prescribe the form of such report in its regulations. A violation of this Section shall be sufficient grounds for the revocation, suspension, denial or non-renewal of any license for the establishment in which the violation occurs. Article 6 Waste Management Facilities Section 37. Prohibition Against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste - No open dumps shall be established and operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs, which constitutes the use of open dumps for solid wastes, be allowed after the effectivity of this Acts: Provided, That within three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act, every LGU shall convert its open dumps into controlled dumps, in accordance with the guidelines set in Sec. 41 of this Act: Provided, further, That no controlled dumps shall be allowed five (5) years following the effectivity of this Act. Section 38. Permit for Solid Waste Management Facility Construction and Expansion - No person shall commence operation, including site preparation and construction of a new solid waste management facility or the expansion of an existing facility until said person obtains an Environment Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Department pursuant to P.D. 1586 and other permits and clearances form concerned agencies. CHAPTER VI PENAL PROVISIONS Section 48. Prohibited Acts - The following acts are prohibited: (1) Littering, throwing, dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads, sidewalks, canals, esteros or parks, and establishment, or causing or permitting the same; (2) Undertaking activities or operating, collecting or transporting equipment in violation of sanitation operation and other requirements or permits set forth in established pursuant; (3) The open burning of solid waste; (4) Causing or permitting the collection of non-segregated or unsorted wastes; (5) Squatting in open dumps and landfills; (6) Open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non-biodegradable materials in flood prone areas; (7) Unauthorized removal of recyclable material intended for collection by authorized persons; (8) The mixing of source-separated recyclable material with other solid waste in any vehicle, box, container or receptacle used in solid waste collection or disposal; (9) Establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in this Act, or closure of said dumps in violation of Sec. 37; (10) The manufacture, distribution or use of non-environmentally acceptable packaging materials; (11) Importation of consumer products packaged in non-environmentally acceptable materials; (12) Importation of toxic wastes misrepresented as "recyclable" or "with recyclable content"; (13) Transport and dumplog in bulk of collected domestic, industrial, commercial, and institutional wastes in areas other than centers or facilities prescribe under this Act; (14) Site preparation, construction, expansion or operation of waste management facilities without an Environmental Compliance Certificate required pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and this Act and not conforming with the land use plan of the LGU; (15) The construction of any establishment within two hundred (200) meters from open dumps or controlled dumps, or sanitary landfill; and (16) The construction or operation of landfills or any waste disposal facility on any aquifer, groundwater reservoir, or watershed area and or any portions thereof.

Section 50. Administrative Sanctions - Local government officials and officials of government agencies concerned who fail to comply with and enforce rules and regulations promulgated relative to this Act shall be charged administratively in accordance with R.A. 7160 and other existing laws, rules and regulations CHAPTER VII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 51. Mandatory Public Hearings - Mandatory public hearings for national framework and local government solid waste management plans shall be undertaken by the Commission and the respective Boards in accordance with process to be formulated in the implementing rules and regulations. Section 52. Citizens Suits - For the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act or its implementing rules and regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper courts/bodies against: (a) Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act its implementing rules and regulations; or (b) The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules and regulations issued inconsistent with this Act; and/or (c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined as a duty by this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; or abuses his authority in the performance of his duty; or, in any many improperly performs his duties under this Act or its implementing rules and regulations;Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until after thirty-day (30) notice has been given to the public officer and the alleged violator concerned and no appropriate action has been taken thereon. The Court shall exempt such action from the payment of filing fees and statements likewise, upon prima facieshowing of the non-enforcement or violation complained of, exempt the plaintiff from the filing of an injunction bond for the issuance of preliminary injunction. In the event that the citizen should prevail, the Court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, moral damages and litigation costs as appropriate. Section 53. Suits and Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and the Enforcement of this Act Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec. 52 of this Act, or against any person, institution or government agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigating prosecutor or the Court, as the case may be, to immediately make a determination not exceeding thirty (30) days whether said legal action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle such legal recourses of the person complaining of or enforcing the provisions of this Act. Upon determination thereof, evidence warranting the same, the Court shall dismiss the complaint and award the attorney's fees and double damages. This provision shall also apply and benefit public officers who are sued for acts committed in their official capacity, there being no grave abuse of authority, and done in the course of enforcing this Act.

G.R. No. 158290

October 23, 2006

HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, ALFREDO L. HENARES, DANIEL L. HENARES, ENRIQUE BELO HENARES, and CRISTINA BELO HENARES, petitioners, vs. LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.

RESOLUTION

QUISUMBING, J.: Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel. Citing statistics from the Metro Manila Transportation and Traffic Situation Study of 1996, 1 the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the National Capital Region,2 a study of the Asian Development Bank,3 the Manila Observatory4 and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources5 (DENR) on the high growth and low turnover in vehicle ownership in the Philippines, including diesel-powered vehicles, two-stroke engine powered motorcycles and their concomitant emission of air pollutants, petitioners attempt to present a compelling case for judicial action against the bane of air pollution and related environmental hazards. Petitioners allege that the particulate matters (PM) complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid droplets, varying in sizes and compositions emitted into the air from various engine combustions have caused detrimental effects on health, productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of life. Petitioners particularly cite the effects of certain fuel emissions from engine combustion when these react to other pollutants. For instance, petitioners aver, with hydrocarbons, oxide of nitrogen (NOx) creates smog; with sulfur dioxide, it creates acid rain; and with ammonia, moisture and other compounds, it reacts to form nitric acid and harmful nitrates. Fuel emissions also cause retardation and leaf bleaching in plants. According to petitioner, another emission, carbon monoxide (CO), when not completely burned but emitted into the atmosphere and then inhaled can disrupt the necessary oxygen in blood. With prolonged exposure, CO affects the nervous system and can be lethal to people with weak hearts.6 Petitioners add that although much of the new power generated in the country will use natural gas while a number of oil and coal-fired fuel stations are being phased-out, still with the projected doubling of power generation over the next 10 years, and with the continuing high demand for motor vehicles, the energy and transport sectors are likely to remain the major sources of harmful emissions. Petitioners refer us to the study of the Philippine Environment Monitor 20027, stating that in four of the country's major cities, Metro Manila, Davao, Cebu and Baguio, the exposure to PM10, a finer PM which can penetrate deep into the lungs causing serious health problems, is estimated at over US$430 million.8 The study also reports that the emissions of PMs have caused the following: Over 2,000 people die prematurely. This loss is valued at about US$140 million. Over 9,000 people suffer from chronic bronchitis, which is valued at about US$120 million. Nearly 51 million cases of respiratory symptom days in Metro Manila (averaging twice a year in Davao and Cebu, and five to six times in Metro Manila and Baguio), costs about US$170 million. This is a 70 percent increase, over a decade, when compared with the findings of a similar study done in 1992 for Metro Manila, which reported 33 million cases.9 Petitioners likewise cite the University of the Philippines' studies in 1990-91 and 1994 showing that vehicular emissions in Metro Manila have resulted to the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD); that pulmonary tuberculosis is highest among jeepney drivers; and there is a 4.8 to 27.5 percent prevalence of respiratory symptoms among school children and 15.8 to 40.6 percent among child vendors. The studies also revealed that the children in Metro Manila showed more compromised pulmonary function than their rural counterparts. Petitioners infer that these are mostly due to the emissions of PUVs. To counter the aforementioned detrimental effects of emissions from PUVs, petitioners propose the use of CNG. According to petitioners, CNG is a natural gas comprised mostly of methane which although containing small amounts of propane and butane,10 is colorless and odorless and considered the cleanest fossil fuel because it produces much less pollutants than coal and petroleum; produces up to 90 percent less CO compared to gasoline and diesel fuel; reduces NOx emissions by 50 percent and cuts hydrocarbon emissions by half; emits 60 percent less PMs; and releases virtually no sulfur dioxide. Although, according to petitioners, the only drawback of CNG is that it produces more methane, one of the gases blamed for global warming.11

Asserting their right to clean air, petitioners contend that the bases for their petition for a writ of mandamus to order the LTFRB to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel, lie in Section 16, 12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution, our ruling in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 and Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999." Meantime, following a subsequent motion, the Court granted petitioners' motion to implead the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) as additional respondent. In his Comment for respondents LTFRB and DOTC, the Solicitor General, cites Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and explains that the writ of mandamus is not the correct remedy since the writ may be issued only to command a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do an act that is required to be done, when he or it unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.15 Further citing existing jurisprudence, the Solicitor General explains that in contrast to a discretionary act, a ministerial act, which a mandamus is, is one in which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to a mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of an act done. The Solicitor General also notes that nothing in Rep. Act No. 8749 that petitioners invoke, prohibits the use of gasoline and diesel by owners of motor vehicles. Sadly too, according to the Solicitor General, Rep. Act No. 8749 does not even mention the existence of CNG as alternative fuel and avers that unless this law is amended to provide CNG as alternative fuel for PUVs, the respondents cannot propose that PUVs use CNG as alternative fuel. The Solicitor General also adds that it is the DENR that is tasked to implement Rep. Act No. 8749 and not the LTFRB nor the DOTC. Moreover, he says, it is the Department of Energy (DOE), under Section 26 16 of Rep. Act No. 8749, that is required to set the specifications for all types of fuel and fuel-related products to improve fuel compositions for improved efficiency and reduced emissions. He adds that under Section 21 17 of the cited Republic Act, the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission standards for motor vehicles, and the herein respondents cannot alter, change or modify the emission standards. The Solicitor General opines that the Court should declare the instant petition for mandamus without merit. Petitioners, in their Reply, insist that the respondents possess the administrative and regulatory powers to implement measures in accordance with the policies and principles mandated by Rep. Act No. 8749, specifically Section 218 and Section 21.19 Petitioners state that under these laws and with all the available information provided by the DOE on the benefits of CNG, respondents cannot ignore the existence of CNG, and their failure to recognize CNG and compel its use by PUVs as alternative fuel while air pollution brought about by the emissions of gasoline and diesel endanger the environment and the people, is tantamount to neglect in the performance of a duty which the law enjoins. Lastly, petitioners aver that other than the writ applied for, they have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners insist that the writ in fact should be issued pursuant to the very same Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court that the Solicitor General invokes. In their Memorandum, petitioners phrase the issues before us as follows: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS HAVE THE PERSONALITY TO BRING THE PRESENT ACTION II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT ACTION IS SUPPORTED BY LAW III. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE OF REQUIRING PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CAN BE COMPELLED TO REQUIRE PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLES TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS THROUGH A WRIT OF MANDAMUS20 Briefly put, the issues are two-fold. First, Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this petition before us? Second, Should mandamus issue against respondents to compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel? According to petitioners, Section 16,21 Article II of the 1987 Constitution is the policy statement that bestows on the people the right to breathe clean air in a healthy environment. This policy is enunciated in Oposa.22 The implementation of this policy is articulated in Rep. Act No. 8749. These, according to petitioners, are the bases for their standing to file the instant petition. They aver that when there is an omission by the government to safeguard a right, in this case their right to clean air, then, the citizens can resort to and exhaust all remedies to challenge this omission by the government. This, they say, is embodied in Section 423 of Rep. Act No. 8749.

Petitioners insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that are the government agencies clothed with power to regulate and control motor vehicles, particularly PUVs, and with the same agencies' awareness and knowledge that the PUVs emit dangerous levels of air pollutants, then, the responsibility to see that these are curbed falls under respondents' functions and a writ of mandamus should issue against them. The Solicitor General, for his part, reiterates his position that the respondent government agencies, the DOTC and the LTFRB, are not in a position to compel the PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel. The Solicitor General explains that the function of the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission standards set forth in Rep. Act No. 8749 and the said law only goes as far as setting the maximum limit for the emission of vehicles, but it does not recognize CNG as alternative engine fuel. The Solicitor General avers that the petition should be addressed to Congress for it to come up with a policy that would compel the use of CNG as alternative fuel. Patently, this Court is being asked to resolve issues that are not only procedural. Petitioners challenge this Court to decide if what petitioners propose could be done through a less circuitous, speedy and unchartered course in an issue that Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his ponencia in the Oposa case,24 describes as "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." Now, as to petitioners' standing. There is no dispute that petitioners have standing to bring their case before this Court. Even respondents do not question their standing. This petition focuses on one fundamental legal right of petitioners, their right to clean air. Moreover, as held previously, a party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which may, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the importance of the issue raised. We brush aside this issue of technicality under the principle of the transcendental importance to the public, especially so if these cases demand that they be settled promptly. Undeniably, the right to clean air not only is an issue of paramount importance to petitioners for it concerns the air they breathe, but it is also impressed with public interest. The consequences of the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of a neglected environment due to emissions of motor vehicles immeasurably affect the wellbeing of petitioners. On these considerations, the legal standing of the petitioners deserves recognition. Our next concern is whether the writ of mandamus is the proper remedy, and if the writ could issue against respondents. Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, mandamus lies under any of the following cases: (1) against any tribunal which unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty; (2) in case any corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; and (3) in case any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is legally entitled; and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,25 we said, It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. It does not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct, nor to control or review the exercise of discretion. On the part of the petitioner, it is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he should have a clear legal rightto the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. It never issues in doubtful cases. While it may not be necessary that the duty be absolutely expressed, it must however, be clear. The writ will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do, or give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed. (Emphasis supplied.) In this petition the legal right which is sought to be recognized and enforced hinges on a constitutional and a statutory policy already articulated in operational terms, e.g. in Rep. Act No. 8749, the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. Paragraph (a), Section 21 of the Act specifically provides that when PUVs are concerned, the responsibility of implementing the policy falls on respondent DOTC. It provides as follows: SEC 21. Pollution from Motor Vehicles. - a) The DOTC shall implement the emission standards for motor vehicles set pursuant to and as provided in this Act. To further improve the emission standards, the Department [DENR] shall review, revise and publish the standards every two (2) years, or as the need arises. It shall consider the maximum limits for all major pollutants to ensure substantial improvement in air quality for the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Paragraph (b) states:

b) The Department [DENR] in collaboration with the DOTC, DTI and LGUs, shall develop an action plan for the control and management of air pollution from motor vehicles consistent with the Integrated Air Quality Framework . . . . (Emphasis supplied.) There is no dispute that under the Clean Air Act it is the DENR that is tasked to set the emission standards for fuel use and the task of developing an action plan. As far as motor vehicles are concerned, it devolves upon the DOTC and the line agency whose mandate is to oversee that motor vehicles prepare an action plan and implement the emission standards for motor vehicles, namely the LTFRB. In Oposa26 we said, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. We also said, it is clearly the duty of the responsible government agencies to advance the said right. Petitioners invoke the provisions of the Constitution and the Clean Air Act in their prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG as an alternative fuel. Although both are general mandates that do not specifically enjoin the use of any kind of fuel, particularly the use of CNG, there is an executive order implementing a program on the use of CNG by public vehicles. Executive Order No. 290, entitledImplementing the Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transport (NGVPPT), took effect on February 24, 2004. The program recognized, among others, natural gas as a clean burning alternative fuel for vehicle which has the potential to produce substantially lower pollutants; and the Malampaya Gas-to-Power Project as representing the beginning of the natural gas industry of the Philippines. Paragraph 1.2, Section 1 of E.O. No. 290 cites as one of its objectives, the use of CNG as a clean alternative fuel for transport. Furthermore, one of the components of the program is the development of CNG refueling stations and all related facilities in strategic locations in the country to serve the needs of CNG-powered PUVs. Section 3 of E.O. No. 290, consistent with E.O. No. 66, series of 2002, designated the DOE as the lead agency (a) in developing the natural gas industry of the country with the DENR, through the EMB and (b) in formulating emission standards for CNG. Most significantly, par. 4.5, Section 4 tasks the DOTC, working with the DOE, to develop an implementation plan for "a gradual shift to CNG fuel utilization in PUVs and promote NGVs [natural gas vehicles] in Metro Manila and Luzon through the issuance of directives/orders providing preferential franchises in present day major routes and exclusive franchises to NGVs in newly opened routes" A thorough reading of the executive order assures us that implementation for a cleaner environment is being addressed. To a certain extent, the instant petition had been mooted by the issuance of E.O. No. 290. Regrettably, however, the plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. At most the LTFRB has been tasked by E.O. No. 290 in par. 4.5 (ii), Section 4 "to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) or franchises to operators of NGVs based on the results of the DOTC surveys." Further, mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other.27 The need for future changes in both legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted by orders from this Court, especially when what is prayed for is procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal branches to address by themselves the environmental problems raised in this petition. In the same manner that we have associated the fundamental right to a balanced and healthful ecology with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice" in Oposa,28 where we upheld the right of future Filipinos to prevent the destruction of the rainforests, so do we recognize, in this petition, the right of petitioners and the future generation to clean air. In Oposa we said that if the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is now explicitly found in the Constitution even if the right is "assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers [of the Constitution] that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come. . ."29 It is the firm belief of this Court that in this case, it is timely to reaffirm the premium we have placed on the protection of the environment in the landmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as the statistics are on air pollution, with the present fuels deemed toxic as they are to the environment, as fatal as these pollutants are to the health of the citizens, and urgently requiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, we must admit in particular that petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicles. It appears to us that more properly, the legislature should provide first the specific statutory remedy to the complex environmental problems bared by herein petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is taken. WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 129546 December 13, 2005 PROVINCE OF RIZAL, MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO, PINTONG BOCAUE MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RIZAL, INC., ROLANDO E. VILLACORTE, BERNARDO HIDALGO, ANANIAS EBUENGA, VILMA T. MONTAJES, FEDERICO MUNAR, JR., ROLANDO BEAS, SR., ET AL., and KILOSBAYAN, INC., Petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES, LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS, SECRETARY OF BUDGET & MANAGEMENT, METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,Respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.1 At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President, through Proclamation No. 635 dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal applications. In fact, this site, extending to more or less 18 hectares, had already been in operation since 19 February 19902 for the solid wastes of Quezon City, Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros, Pasig, and Taguig.3 This is a petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and various concerned citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, denying, for lack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of Proclamation No. 635. The facts are documented in painstaking detail. On 17 November 1988, the respondent Secretaries of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Governor of the Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),4 which provides in part: 1. The DENR agrees to immediately allow the utilization by the Metropolitan Manila Commission of its land property located at Pintong Bocaue in San Mateo, Rizal as a sanitary landfill site, subject to whatever restrictions that the government impact assessment might require. 2. Upon signing of this Agreement, the DPWH shall commence the construction/development of said dumpsite. 3. The MMC shall: a) take charge of the relocation of the families within and around the site; b) oversee the development of the areas as a sanitary landfill; c) coordinate/monitor the construction of infrastructure facilities by the DPWH in the said site; and d) ensure that the necessary civil works are properly undertaken to safeguard against any negative environmental impact in the area. On 7, 8 and 10 February 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo wrote Gov. Elfren Cruz of the MMC, Sec. Fiorello Estuar of the DPWH, the Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste Management, Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, and Sec. Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., pointing out that it had recently passed a Resolution banning the creation of dumpsites for Metro Manila garbage within its jurisdiction, asking that their side be heard, and that the addressees "suspend and temporarily hold in abeyance all and any part of your operations with respect to the San Mateo Landfill Dumpsite." No action was taken on these letters. It turns out that the land subject of the MOA of 17 November 1988 and owned by the DENR was part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation Area. Thus, on 31 May 1989, forest officers of the Forest Engineering and Infrastructure Unit of the Community Environment and Natural Resource Office, (CENRO) DENR-IV, Rizal Province, submitted a Memorandum5 on the "On-going Dumping Site Operation of the MMC inside (the) Upper Portion of Marikina Watershed Reservation, located at Barangay Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal, and nearby localities." Said Memorandum reads in part: Observations: 3.1 The subject area is arable and agricultural in nature; 3.2 Soil type and its topography are favorable for agricultural and forestry productions; ...

3.5 Said Dumping Site is observed to be confined within the said Watershed Reservation, bearing in the northeastern part of Lungsod Silangan Townsite Reservation. Such illegal Dumping Site operation inside (the) Watershed Reservation is in violation of P.D. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code, as amended. . . Recommendations: 5.1 The MMC Dumping Site Inside Marikina Watershed Reservation, particularly at Brgy. Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal and at Bo. Pinugay, Baras/Antipolo, Rizal which are the present garbage zones must totally be stopped and discouraged without any political intervention and delay in order to save our healthy ecosystems found therein, to avoid much destruction, useless efforts and lost (sic) of millions of public funds over the land in question; (Emphasis ours) On 19 June 1989, the CENRO submitted another Investigation Report6 to the Regional Executive Director which states in part that: 1. About two (2) hectares had been excavated by bulldozers and garbage dumping operations are going on. 2. The dumping site is without the concurrence of the Provincial Governor, Rizal Province and without any permit from DENR who has functional jurisdiction over the Watershed Reservation; and 3. About 1,192 families residing and cultivating areas covered by four (4) Barangays surrounding the dumping site will adversely be affected by the dumping operations of MMC including their sources of domestic water supply. x x x x On 22 January 1990, the CENRO submitted still another Investigation Report7 to the Regional Executive Director which states that: Findings show that the areas used as Dumping Site of the MMC are found to be within the Marikina Watershed which are part of the Integrated Social Forestry Project (ISF) as per recorded inventory of Forest Occupancy of this office. It also appears that as per record, there was no permit issued to the MMC to utilize these portions of land for dumping purposes. It is further observed that the use of the areas as dumping site greatly affects the ecological balance and environmental factors in this community. On 19 February 1990, the DENR Environmental Management Bureau, through Undersecretary for Environment and Research Celso R. Roque, granted the Metro Manila Authority (MMA [formerly MMC]) an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for the operation of a two-and-a-half-hectare garbage dumpsite. The ECC was sought and granted to comply with the requirement of Presidential Decree No. 1586 "Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System," Section 4 of which states in part that, "No persons, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate." Proclamation No. 2146, passed on 14 December 1981, designates "all areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves, and sanctuaries" as "Environmentally Critical Areas." On 09 March 1990, respondent Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), through its Acting General Manager, sent a letter8 to the MMA, which reads in part: Through this letter we would like to convey our reservation on the choice of the sites for solid waste disposal inside the watershed of Laguna Lake. As you may already know, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) has scheduled the abstraction of water from the lake to serve the needs of about 1.2 million residents of Muntinlupa, Paranaque, Las Pinas and Bacoor, Cavite by 1992. Accordingly, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) is accelerating its environmental management program to upgrade the water quality of the lake in order to make it suitable as a source of domestic water supplythe whole year round. The said program regards dumpsites as incompatible within the watershed because of the heavy pollution, including the risk of diseases, generated by such activities which would negate the governments efforts to upgrade the water quality of the lake. Consequently, please consider our objection to the proposed location of the dumpsites within the watershed. (Emphasis supplied by petitioners) On 31 July 1990, less than six months after the issuance of the ECC, Undersecretary Roque suspended the ECC in a letter9 addressed to the respondent Secretary of DPWH, stating in part that: Upon site investigation conducted by Environmental Management Bureau staff on development activities at the San Mateo Landfill Site, it was ascertained that ground slumping and erosion have resulted from improper development of the site. We believe that this will adversely affect the environmental quality in the area if the proper

remedial measures are not instituted in the design of the landfill site. This is therefore contradictory to statements made in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted that above occurrences will be properly mitigated. In view of this, we are forced to suspend the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued until appropriate modified plans are submitted and approved by this Office for implementation. (Emphasis ours) On 21 June 1993, the Acting Mayor of San Mateo, Enrique Rodriguez, Jr., Barangay Captain Dominador Vergara, and petitioner Rolando E. Villacorte, Chairman of the Pintong Bocaue Multipurpose Cooperative (PBMC) wrote10then President Fidel V. Ramos expressing their objections to the continued operation of the MMA dumpsite for causing "unabated pollution and degradation of the Marikina Watershed Reservation." On 14 July 1993, another Investigation Report11 submitted by the Regional Technical Director to the DENR Undersecretary for Environment and Research contained the following findings and recommendations: Remarks and Findings: .... 5. Interview with Mr. Dayrit, whose lot is now being endangered because soil erosion have (sic) caused severe siltation and sedimentation of the Dayrit Creek which water is greatly polluted by the dumping of soil bulldozed to the creek; 6. Also interview with Mrs. Vilma Montajes, the multi-grade teacher of Pintong Bocaue Primary School which is located only about 100 meters from the landfill site. She disclosed that bad odor have (sic) greatly affected the pupils who are sometimes sick with respiratory illnesses. These odors show that MMA have (sic) not instituted/sprayed any disinfectant chemicals to prevent air pollution in the area. Besides large flies (Bangaw) are swarming all over the playground of the school. The teacher also informed the undersigned that plastic debris are being blown whenever the wind blows in their direction. 7. As per investigation report there are now 15 hectares being used as landfill disposal sites by the MMA. The MMA is intending to expand its operation within the 50 hectares. 8. Lots occupied within 50 hectares are fully planted with fruit bearing trees like Mangoes, Santol, Jackfruit, Kasoy, Guyabano, Kalamansi and Citrus which are now bearing fruits and being harvested and marketed to nearby San Mateo Market and Masinag Market in Antipolo. .... Recommendations: 1. As previously recommended, the undersigned also strongly recommend(s) that the MMA be made to relocate the landfill site because the area is within the Marikina Watershed Reservation and Lungsod Silangan. The leachate treatment plant ha(s) been eroded twice already and contaminated the nearby creeks which is the source of potable water of the residents. The contaminated water also flows to Wawa Dam and Boso-boso River which also flows to Laguna de Bay. 2. The proposed Integrated Social Forestry Project be pushed through or be approved. ISF project will not only uplift the socio-economic conditions of the participants but will enhance the rehabilitation of the Watershed considering that fruit bearing trees are vigorously growing in the area. Some timber producing species are also planted like Mahogany and Gmelina Arboiea. There are also portions where dipterocarp residuals abound in the area. 3. The sanitary landfill should be relocated to some other area, in order to avoid any conflict with the local government of San Mateo and the nearby affected residents who have been in the area for almost 10-20 years. On 16 November 1993, DENR Secretary Angel C. Alcala sent MMA Chairman Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. a letter 12stating that "after a series of investigations by field officials" of the DENR, the agency realized that the MOA entered into on 17 November 1988 "is a very costly error because the area agreed to be a garbage dumpsite is inside the Marikina Watershed Reservation." He then strongly recommended that all facilities and infrastructure in the garbage dumpsite in Pintong Bocaue be dismantled, and the garbage disposal operations be transferred to another area outside the Marikina Watershed Reservation to protect "the health and general welfare of the residents of San Mateo in particular and the residents of Metro Manila in general." On 06 June 1995, petitioner Villacorte, Chairman of the PBMC, wrote 13 President Ramos, through the Executive Secretary, informing the President of the issues involved, that the dumpsite is located near three public elementary schools, the closest of which is only fifty meters away, and that its location "violates the municipal zoning ordinance of San Mateo and, in truth, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board had denied the then MMA chairmans application for a locational clearance on this ground."

On 21 August 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo issued a Resolution14 "expressing a strong objection to the planned expansion of the landfill operation in Pintong Bocaue and requesting President Ramos to disapprove the draft Presidential Proclamation segregating 71.6 Hectares from Marikina Watershed Reservation for the landfill site in Pintong Bocaue, San Mateo, Rizal." Despite the various objections and recommendations raised by the government agencies aforementioned, the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, signed and issued Proclamation No. 635 on 28 August 1995, "Excluding from the Marikina Watershed Reservation Certain Parcels of Land Embraced Therein for Use as Sanitary Landfill Sites and Similar Waste Disposal Under the Administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority." The pertinent portions thereof state: WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements of the growing population in Metro Manila and the adjoining provinces and municipalities, certain developed and open portions of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources should now be excluded form the scope of the reservation; WHEREAS, while the areas delineated as part of the Watershed Reservations are intended primarily for use in projects and/or activities designed to contain and preserve the underground water supply, other peripheral areas had been included within the scope of the reservation to provide for such space as may be needed for the construction of the necessary structures, other related facilities, as well as other priority projects of government as may be eventually determined; WHEREAS, there is now an urgent need to provide for, and develop, the necessary facilities for the disposal of the waste generated by the population of Metro Manila and the adjoining provinces and municipalities, to ensure their sanitary and /or hygienic disposal; WHEREAS, to cope with the requirements for the development of the waste disposal facilities that may be used, portions of the peripheral areas of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, after due consideration and study, have now been identified as suitable sites that may be used for the purpose; WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has recommended the exclusion of these areas that have been so identified from the Marikina Watershed Reservation so that they may then be developed for the purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the aforecited premises, I, Fidel V. Ramos, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby ordain: Section 1. General That certain parcels of land, embraced by the Marikina Watershed Reservation, were found needed for use in the solid waste disposal program of the government in Metropolitan Manila, are hereby excluded from that which is held in reserve and are now made available for use as sanitary landfill and such other related waste disposal applications. Section 2. Purpose The areas being excluded from the Marikina Watershed Reservation are hereby placed under the administration of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, for development as Sanitary Landfill, and/or for use in the development of such other related waste disposal facilities that may be used by the cities and municipalities of Metro Manila and the adjoining province of Rizal and its municipalities. Section 3. Technical Description Specifically, the areas being hereby excluded from the Marikina Watershed Reservation consist of two (2) parcels, with an aggregate area of approximately ONE MILLION SIXTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE (1,060,529) square meters more or less, as follows: x x x x Section 4. Reservations The development, construction, use and/or operation of any facility that may be established within the parcel of land herein excluded from the Marikina Watershed Reservation shall be governed by existing laws, rules and regulations pertaining to environmental control and management. When no longer needed for sanitary landfill purposes or the related waste disposal activities, the parcels of land subject of this proclamation shall revert back as part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, unless otherwise authorized. On 06 September 1995, Director Wilfrido S. Pollisco of the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau wrote the DENR Secretary to express the bureaus stand against the dumpsite at Pintong Bocaue, and that "it is our view . . . t hat the mere presence of a garbage dumpsite inside a watershed reservation is definitely not compatible with the very purpose and objectives for which the reservation was established." On 24 November 1995, the petitioners Municipality of San Mateo and the residents of Pintong Bocaue, represented by former Senator Jovito Salonga, sent a letter to President Ramos requesting him to reconsider Proclamation No. 635. Receiving no reply, they sent another letter on 02 January 1996 reiterating their previous request. On 04 March 1996, then chairman of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA [formerly MMA]) Prospero I. Oreta addressed a letter to Senator Salonga, stating in part that:

. 2. Considering the circumstances under which we are pursuing the project, we are certain you will agree that, unless we are prepared with a better alternative, the project simply has to be pursued in the best interest of the greater majority of the population, particularly their health and welfare." 2.1 The San Mateo Sanitary Landfill services, at least, 38% of the waste disposal site requirements of Metro Manila where an estimated 9 million population reside. 2.2 Metro Manila is presently estimated to be generating, at least, 15,700 cubic meters of household or municipal waste, a 1.57 hectare of land area will be filled in a months time with a pile 31 meters high of garbage, or in a year, the accumulated volume will require 18.2 hectares. .... 4. The sanitary landfill projects are now on their fifth year of implementation. The amount of effort and money already invested in the project by the government cannot easily be disregarded, much more set aside in favor of the few settlers/squatters who chose to ignore the earlier notice given to them that the area would be used precisely for the development of waste disposal sites, and are now attempting to arouse opposition to the project. 4.2 There is no place within the jurisdiction of Metro Manila, with an area big enough to accommodate at least 3 to 5 years of waste disposal requirements. x x x x 4.21 The present site at San Mateo was selected because, at the time consideration was being made, and up to the present, it is found to have the attributes that positively respond to the criteria established: 4.21.1 The site was a government property and would not require any outlay for it to be acquired. 4.21.2 It is far from any sizeable community/settlements that could be affected by the development that would be introduced and yet, was within economic hauling distance from the areas they are designed to serve. 4.21.21 At the time it was originally decided to locate the landfills at the present site, there were not more that fifteen (15) settlers in the area and they had hardly established themselves. The community settlements were located far from the site. 4.21.22 The area was hardly accessible, especially to any public transport. The area was being served by a public utility jeep that usually made only two (2) trips daily. During the rainy season, it could only be reached by equipping the vehicle with tire chains to traverse the slippery muddy trail roads. 4.21.3 There was, at least, seventy-three (73) hectares available at the site. 4.3 While the site was within the Marikina Watershed Reservation under the administration of the DENR, the site was located at the lower periphery of the buffer zone; was evaluated to be least likely to affect the underground water supply; and could, in fact, be excluded from the reservation. 4.31 It was determined to be far from the main water containment area for it to pose any immediate danger of contaminating the underground water, in case of a failure in any of the mitigating measures that would be installed. 4.32 It was likewise too far from the nearest body of water, the Laguna Lake, and the distance, plus the increasing accumulation of water from other tributaries toward the lake, would serve to dilute and mitigate any contamination it may emit, in case one happened. 4.33 To resolve the recurring issue regarding its being located within the Marikina Watershed Reservation, the site had been recommended by the DENR, and approved by the President, to already be excluded from the Marikina Watershed reservation and placed under the administration of MMDA, since the site was deemed to form part of the land resource reserve then commonly referred to as buffer zone. 5. Contrary to the impression that you had been given, relocating the site at this point and time would not be easy, if not impracticable, because aside from the investments that had been made in locating the present site, further investments have been incurred in: 5.1 The conduct of the technical studies for the development being implemented. Through a grant-in-aid from the World Bank, US$600,000 was initially spent for the conduct of the necessary studies on the area and the design of the landfill. This was augmented by, at least, another P1.5 million from the government for the studies to be completed, or a total cost at the time (1990) of approximately P20 million. 5.2. Additionally, the government has spent approximately P33 million in improving on the roadway to make the site accessible from the main road/highway.

5.3 To achieve the necessary economies in the development of the site, the utilities had been planned so that their use could be maximized. These include the access roads, the drainage system, the leacheate collection system, the gas collection system, and the waste water treatment system. Their construction are designed so that instead of having to construct independent units for each area, the use of existing facilities can be maximized through a system of interconnection. On the average, the government is spending P14.8 million to develop a hectare of sanitary landfill area. 6. Despite the preparations and the investments that are now being made on the project, it is estimated that the total available area, at an accelerated rate of disposal, assuming that all open dump sites were to be closed, will only last for 39 months. 6.1 We are still hard pressed to achieve advanced development on the sites to assure against any possible crisis in garbage from again being experienced in Metro Manila, aside from having to look for the additional sites that may be used after the capacities shall have been exhausted. 6.2 Faced with the prospects of having the 15,700 cubic meters of garbage generated daily strewn all over Metro Manila, we are certain you will agree that it would be futile to even as much as consider a suspension of the waste disposal operations at the sanitary landfills. On 22 July 1996, the petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals a civil action for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction. The hearing on the prayer for preliminary injunction was held on 14 August 1996. On 13 June 1997, the court a quo rendered a Decision,15 the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction for lack of cause of action, is hereby DENIED.16 Hence, this petition for review on certiorari of the above decision on the following grounds: I The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion in deliberately ignoring the significant fact that Presidential Proclamation No. 635 was based on a brazen forgery it was supposedly issued, as stated in the proclamation itself and repeatedly asserted by respondents in their comment, on the basis of the alleged recommendation of the DENR Secretary dated June 26, 1995 but which assertion was denounced by the then Secretary Angel C. Alcala himself in a sworn statement dated September 18, 1996 and again during the special hearing of the case in the Court of Appeals on November 13, 1996 as a forgery since his signature on the alleged recommendation had been falsified, as now admitted by respondents themselves in their comment filed with the Court of Appeals, through the Office of the Solicitor General. II The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion in completely ignoring the significant fact that the respondents are operating the landfill based on a spurious Environmental Compliance Certificate. III The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the respondents did not violate R.A. 7586 when they issued and implemented Proclamation No. 635 considering that the withdrawal or disestablishment of a protected area or the modification of the Marikina Watershed can only be done by an act of Congress. IV The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion when it deliberately and willfully brushed aside the unanimous findings and adverse recommendations of responsible government agencies and non-partisan officials concerned with environmental protection in favor of the self-serving, gratuitous assertions found in the unsolicited, partisan letter of former Malabon Mayor, now Chairman Prospero Oreta of the MMDA who is an interested party in this case. V The Court of Appeals erred when it readily swallowed respondents assertion that the San Mateo Dumpsite "is located in the Buffer Zone of the reservation" and is therefore outsi de of its boundaries, and even declared in its decision that it took "serious note" of this particular argument. VI

The Court of Appeals erred and abused its discretion when it encroached on the function of Congress by expressing its unjustified fear of mini-smokey mountains proliferating in Metro Manila and justifying its decision in favor of "an integrated system of solid waste management like the San Mateo Landfill. On 05 January 1998, while the appeal was pending, the petitioners filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,17 pointing out that the effects of the El Nio phenomenon would be aggravated by the relentless destruction of the Marikina Watershed Reservation. They noted that respondent MMDA had, in the meantime, continued to expand the area of the dumpsite inside the Marikina Watershed Reservation, cutting down thousands of mature fruit trees and forest trees, and leveling hills and mountains to clear the dumping area. Garbage disposal operations were also being conducted on a 24-hour basis, with hundreds of metric tons of wastes being dumped daily, including toxic and infectious hospital wastes, intensifying the air, ground and water pollution.18 The petitioners reiterated their prayer that respondent MMDA be temporarily enjoined from further dumping waste into the site and from encroaching into the area beyond its existing perimeter fence so as not to render the case moot and academic. On 28 January 1999, the petitioners filed a Motion for Early Resolution,19 calling attention to the continued expansion of the dumpsite by the MMDA that caused the people of Antipolo to stage a rally and barricade the Marcos Highway to stop the dump trucks from reaching the site for five successive days from 16 January 1999. On the second day of the barricade, all the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly declared their full support for the rally, and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their province.20 As a result, MMDA officials, headed by then Chairman Jejomar Binay, agreed to abandon the dumpsite after six months. Thus, the municipal mayors of Rizal, particularly the mayors of Antipolo and San Mateo, agreed to the use of the dumpsite until that period, which would end on 20 July 1999.21 On 13 July 1999, the petitioners filed an Urgent Second Motion for Early Resolution22 in anticipation of violence between the conflicting parties as the date of the scheduled closure of the dumpsite neared. On 19 July 1999, then President Joseph E. Estrada, taking cognizance of the gravity of the problems in the affected areas and the likelihood that violence would erupt among the parties involved, issued a Memorandum ordering the closure of the dumpsite on 31 December 2000.23 Accordingly, on 20 July 1999, the Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA with the Provincial Government of Rizal, the Municipality of San Mateo, and the City of Antipolo, wherein the latter agreed to further extend the use of the dumpsite until its permanent closure on 31 December 2000.24 On 11 January 2001, President Estrada directed Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to reopen the San Mateo dumpsite "in view of the emergency situation of uncollected garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in a critical and imminent health and sanitation epidemic."25 Claiming the above events constituted a "clear and present danger of violence erupting in the affected areas," the petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for Restraining Order26 on 19 January 2001. On 24 January 2001, this Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed for, "effective immediately and until further orders."27 Meanwhile, on 26 January 2001, Republic Act No. 9003, otherwise known as "The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000," was signed into law by President Estrada. Thus, the petitioners raised only two issues in their Memorandum 28 of 08 February 2005: 1) whether or not respondent MMDA agreed to the permanent closure of the San Mateo Landfill as of December 2000, and 2) whether or not the permanent closure of the San Mateo landfill is mandated by Rep. Act No. 9003. We hold that the San Mateo Landfill will remain permanently closed. Although the petitioners may be deemed to have waived or abandoned the issues raised in their previous pleadings but not included in the memorandum,29 certain events we shall relate below have inclined us to address some of the more pertinent issues raised in the petition for the guidance of the herein respondents, and pursuant to our symbolic function to educate the bench and bar.30 The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsites permanent closure. The rally and barricade staged by the people of Antipolo on 28 January 1999, with the full support of all the mayors of Rizal Province caused the MMDA to agree that it would abandon the dumpsite after six months. In return, the municipal mayors allowed the use of the dumpsite until 20 July 1999. On 20 July 1999, with much fanfare and rhetoric, the Presidential Committee on Flagship Programs and Projects and the MMDA entered into a MOA with the Provincial Government of Rizal, the Municipality of San Mateo, and the

City of Antipolo, whereby the latter agreed to an extension for the use of the dumpsite until 31 December 2000, at which time it would be permanently closed. Despite this agreement, President Estrada directed Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Alfredo Lim and MMDA Chairman Binay to reopen the San Mateo dumpsite on 11 January 2001, "in view of the emergency situation of uncollected garbage in Metro Manila, resulting in a critical and imminent health and sanitation epidemic;" our issuance of a TRO on 24 January 2001 prevented the dumpsites reopening. Were it not for the TRO, then President Estradas instructions would have been lawfully carried out, for as we observed in Oposa v. Factoran, the freedom of contract is not absolute. Thus: .. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., this Court stated: "The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare." The reason for this is emphatically set forth inNebia vs. New York, quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, to wit: "'Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.'" In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied) We thus feel there is also the added need to reassure the residents of the Province of Rizal that this is indeed a final resolution of this controversy, for a brief review of the records of this case indicates two self-evident facts.First, the San Mateo site has adversely affected its environs, and second, sources of water should always be protected. As to the first point, the adverse effects of the site were reported as early as 19 June 1989, when the Investigation Report of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer of DENR-IV-1 stated that the sources of domestic water supply of over one thousand families would be adversely affected by the dumping operations.31The succeeding report included the observation that the use of the areas as dumping site greatly affected the ecological balance and environmental factors of the community.32 Respondent LLDA in fact informed the MMA that the heavy pollution and risk of disease generated by dumpsites rendered the location of a dumpsite within the Marikina Watershed Reservation incompatible with its program of upgrading the water quality of the Laguna Lake.33 The DENR suspended the sites ECC after investigations revealed ground slumping and erosion had resulted from improper development of the site.34 Another Investigation Report35 submitted by the Regional Technical Director to the DENR reported respiratory illnesses among pupils of a primary school located approximately 100 meters from the site, as well as the constant presence of large flies and windblown debris all over the schools playground. It further reiterated reports that the leachate treatment plant had been eroded twice already, contaminating the nearby creeks that were sources of potable water for the residents. The contaminated water was also found to flow to the Wawa Dam and Boso-boso River, which in turn empties into Laguna de Bay. This brings us to the second self-evident point. Water is life, and must be saved at all costs. In Collado v. Court of Appeals,36 we had occasion to reaffirm our previous discussion in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,37 on the primordial importance of watershed areas, thus: "The most important product of a watershed is water, which is one of the most important human necessities. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational" responsibility that needs to be answered now.38 Three short months before Proclamation No. 635 was passed to avert the garbage crisis, Congress had enacted the National Water Crisis Act39 to "adopt urgent and effective measures to address the nationwide water crisis which adversely affects the health and well-being of the population, food production, and industrialization process. One of the issues the law sought to address was the "protection and conservation of watersheds."40 In other words, while respondents were blandly declaring that "the reason for the creation of the Marikina Watershed Reservation, i.e., to protect Marikina River as the source of water supply of the City of Manila, no longer exists," the rest of the country was gripped by a shortage of potable water so serious, it necessitated its own legislation. Respondents actions in the face of such grave environmental consequences defy all logic. The petitioners rightly noted that instead of providing solutions, they have, with unmitigated callousness, worsened the problem. It is this readiness to wreak irrevocable damage on our natural heritage in pursuit of what is expedient that has compelled us to rule at length on this issue. We ignore the unrelenting depletion of our natural heritage at our peril. I.

The Reorganization Act of the DENR Defines and Limits Its Powers over the Countrys Natural Resources The respondents next point out that the Marikina Watershed Reservation, and thus the San Mateo Site, is located in the public domain. They allege that as such, neither the Province of Rizal nor the municipality of San Mateo has the power to control or regulate its use since properties of this nature belong to the national, and not to the local governments. It is ironic that the respondents should pursue this line of reasoning. In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,41 we had occasion to observe that "(o)ne of the fixed and dominating objectives of the 1935 Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the country. There was an overwhelming sentiment in the convention in favor of the principle of state ownership of natural resources and the adoption of the Regalian doctrine. State ownership of natural resources was seen as a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the states power to control their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization."42 The Regalian doctrine was embodied in the 1935 Constitution, in Section 1 of Article XIII on "Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources." This was reiterated in the 1973 Constitution under Article XIV on the "National Economy and the Patrimony of the Nation," and reaffirmed in the 1987 Constitution in Section 2 of Article XII on "National Economy and Patrimony," to wit: Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.43 Clearly, the state is, and always has been, zealous in preserving as much of our natural and national heritage as it can, enshrining as it did the obligation to preserve and protect the same within the text of our fundamental law. It was with this objective in mind that the respondent DENR was mandated by then President Corazon C. Aquino, under Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192, 44 otherwise known as "The Reorganization Act of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources," to be "the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the countrys environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain. It is also responsible for the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos." We expounded on this matter in the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran,45 where we held that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is a fundamental legal right that carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. This right implies, among other things, the judicious management and conservation of the countrys resources, which duty is reposed in the DENR under the aforequoted Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192. Moreover: Section 3 (of E. O. No. 192) makes the following statement of policy: SEC. 3. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable access of the different segments of the population to the development and use of the country's natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true value system including social and environmental cost implications relative to their utilization; development and conservation of our natural resources. (Emphasis ours) This policy declaration is substantially re-stated in Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads: SEC. 1. Declaration of Policy. - (1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and development as well as the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources,consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of

the environment and the objective of making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as future generations. (2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources. The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment."46 (Emphasis ours.) In sum, the Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive Order No. 192 entrust the DENR with the guardianship andsafekeeping of the Marikina Watershed Reservation and our other natural treasures. However, although the DENR, an agency of the government, owns the Marikina Reserve and has jurisdiction over the same, this power is not absolute, but is defined by the declared policies of the state, and is subject to the law and higher authority.Section 2, Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, while specifically referring to the mandate of the DENR, makes particular reference to the agencys being subject to law and higher authority, thus: SEC. 2. Mandate. - (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy. (2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country's natural resources. With great power comes great responsibility. It is the height of irony that the public respondents have vigorously arrogated to themselves the power to control the San Mateo site, but have deftly ignored their corresponding responsibility as guardians and protectors of this tormented piece of land. II. The Local Government Code Gives to Local Government Units All the Necessary Powers to Promote the General Welfare of Their Inhabitants The circumstances under which Proclamation No. 635 was passed also violates Rep. Act No. 7160, or the Local Government Code. Contrary to the averment of the respondents, Proclamation No. 635, which was passed on 28 August 1995, is subject to the provisions of the Local Government Code, which was approved four years earlier, on 10 October 1991. Section 2(c) of the said law declares that it is the policy of the state " to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic consultations with appropriate local government units, non-governmental and people's organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions." Likewise, Section 27 requires prior consultations before a program shall be implemented by government authorities and the prior approval of the sanggunian is obtained. During the oral arguments at the hearing for the temporary restraining order, Director Uranza of the MMDA Solid Waste Management Task Force declared before the Court of Appeals that they had conducted the required consultations. However, he added that "(t)his is the problem, sir, the officials we may have been talking with at the time this was established may no longer be incumbent and this is our difficulty now. That is what we are trying to do now, a continuing dialogue." 47 The ambivalent reply of Director Uranza was brought to the fore when, at the height of the protest rally and barricade along Marcos Highway to stop dump trucks from reaching the site, all the municipal mayors of the province of Rizal openly declared their full support for the rally and notified the MMDA that they would oppose any further attempt to dump garbage in their province. 48 The municipal mayors acted within the scope of their powers, and were in fact fulfilling their mandate, when they did this. Section 16 allows every local government unit to "exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare," which involve, among other things, "promot(ing) health and safety, enhance(ing) the right of the people to a balanced ecology, and preserv(ing) the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. " In Lina , Jr. v. Pao,49 we held that Section 2 (c), requiring consultations with the appropriate local government units, should apply to national government projects affecting the environmental or ecological balance of the particular community implementing the project. Rejecting the petitioners contention that Sections 2(c) and 27 of the Local Government Code applied mandatorily in the setting up of lotto outlets around the country, we held that: From a careful reading of said provisions, we find that these apply only to national programs and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particular local community. Lotto is neither a program nor a project of the national

government, but of a charitable institution, the PCSO. Though sanctioned by the national government, it is far fetched to say that lotto falls within the contemplation of Sections 2 (c) and 27 of the Local Government Code. Section 27 of the Code should be read in conjunction with Section 26 thereof. Section 26 reads: SECTION 26. Duty of National Government Agencies in the Maintenance of Ecological Balance. It shall be the duty of every national agency or government-owned or controlled corporation authorizing or involved in the planning and implementation of any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned and explain the goals and objectives of the project or program, its impact upon the people and the community in terms of environmental or ecological balance, and the measures that will be undertaken to prevent or minimize the adverse effects thereof. Thus, the projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects and programs whose effects are among those enumerated in Section 26 and 27, to wit, those that: (1) may cause pollution; (2) may bring about climatic change; (3) may cause the depletion of non-renewable resources; (4) may result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover; (5) may eradicate certain animal or plant species from the face of the planet; and (6) other projects or programs that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in the locality where these will be implemented . Obviously, none of these effects will be produced by the introduction of lotto in the province of Laguna. (emphasis supplied) We reiterated this doctrine in the recent case of Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas,50 where we held that there was no statutory requirement for the sangguniang bayan of Puerto Galera to approve the construction of a mooring facility, as Sections 26 and 27 are inapplicable to projects which are not environmentally critical. Moreover, Section 447, which enumerates the powers, duties and functions of the municipality, grants thesangguniang bayan the power to, among other things, "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of th(e) Code." These include: (1) Approving ordinances and passing resolutions to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, illegal logging and smuggling of logs, smuggling of natural resources products and of endangered species of flora and fauna, slash and burn farming, and such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological imbalance; [Section 447 (1)(vi)] (2) Prescribing reasonable limits and restraints on the use of property within the jurisdiction of the municipality, adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the municipality, reclassifying land within the jurisdiction of the city, subject to the pertinent provisions of this Code, enacting integrated zoning ordinances in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations; establishing fire limits or zones, particularly in populous centers; and regulating the construction, repair or modification of buildings within said fire limits or zones in accordance with the provisions of this Code; [Section 447 (2)(vi-ix)] (3) Approving ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the basic services and facilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said services and facilities, providing for the establishment, maintenance, protection, and conservation of communal forests and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forest development projects .and, subject to existing laws, establishing and providing for the maintenance, repair and operation of an efficient waterworks system to supply water for the inhabitants and purifying the source of the water supply; regulating the construction, maintenance, repair and use of hydrants, pumps, cisterns and reservoirs; protecting the purity and quantity of the water supply of the municipality and, for this purpose, extending the coverage of appropriate ordinances over all territory within the drainage area of said water supply and within one hundred (100) meters of the reservoir, conduit, canal, aqueduct, pumping station, or watershed used in connection with the water service; and regulating the consumption, use or wastage of water." [Section 447 (5)(i) & (vii)] Under the Local Government Code, therefore, two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented: prior consultation with the affected local communities, and prior approval of the project by the appropriate sanggunian. Absent either of these mandatory requirements, the projects implementation is illegal. III. Waste Disposal Is Regulated by the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 The respondents would have us overlook all the abovecited laws because the San Mateo site is a very expensive and necessary - fait accompli. The respondents cite the millions of pesos and hundreds of thousands of dollars the government has already expended in its development and construction, and the lack of any viable alternative sites.

The Court of Appeals agreed, thus: During the hearing on the injunction, questions were also asked. "What will happen if the San Mateo Sanitary Landfill is closed? Where will the daily collections of garbage be disposed of and dumped?" Atty. Mendoza, one of the lawyers of the petitioners, answered that each city/municipality must take care of its own. Reflecting on that answer, we are troubled: will not the proliferation of separate open dumpsites be a more serious health hazard (which ha(s) to be addressed) to the residents of the community? What with the galloping population growth and the constricting available land area in Metro Manila? There could be a mini -Smokey Mountain in each of the ten citiescomprising Metro Manila, placing in danger the health and safety of more people. Damage to the environment could be aggravated by the increase in number of open dumpsites. An integrated system of solid waste management, like the San Mateo Sanitary Landfill, appears advisable to a populous metropolis like the Greater Metro Manila Area absent access to better technology.51 We acknowledge that these are valid concerns. Nevertheless, the lower court should have been mindful of the legal truism that it is the legislature, by its very nature, which is the primary judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness and expediency of any law.52 Moreover, these concerns are addressed by Rep. Act No. 9003. Approved on 26 January 2001, "The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000" was enacted pursuant to the declared policy of the state "to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological solid waste management system which shall ensure the protection of public health and environment, and utilize environmentally sound methods that maximize the utilization of valuable resources and encourage resource conservation and recovery."53 It requires the adherence to a Local Government Solid Waste Management Plan with regard to the collection and transfer, processing, source reduction, recycling, composting and final disposal of solid wastes, the handling and disposal of special wastes, education and public information, and the funding of solid waste management projects. The said law mandates the formulation of a National Solid Waste Management Framework, which should include, among other things, the method and procedure for the phaseout and the eventual closure within eighteen months from effectivity of the Act in case of existing open dumps and/or sanitary landfills located within an aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area.54 Any landfills subsequently developed must comply with the minimum requirements laid down in Section 40, specifically that the site selected must be consistent with the overall land use plan of the local government unit, and that the site must be located in an area where the landfills operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally sensitive resources such as aquifers, groundwater reservoirs or watershed areas.55 This writes finis to any remaining aspirations respondents may have of reopening the San Mateo Site. Having declared Proclamation No. 635 illegal, we see no compelling need to tackle the remaining issues raised in the petition and the parties respective memoranda. A final word. Laws pertaining to the protection of the environment were not drafted in a vacuum. Congress passed these laws fully aware of the perilous state of both our economic and natural wealth. It was precisely to minimize the adverse impact humanitys actions on all aspects of the natural world, at the same time maintaining and ensuring an environment under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, that these legal safeguards were put in place. They should thus not be so lightly cast aside in the face of what is easy and expedient. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, dated 13 June 1997, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court on 24 January 2001 is hereby made permanent. SO ORDERED.